This letter written in September was in response to the observations of an eminent scholar from a prestigious University in USA. Lacking the permission to print his letter, I am making available my observations to his queries. DJ is printing this letter without prejudice.
Dear DJ,
Thank you for the two articles. I have gone through them and in essence
they are fairly objective. We have a dilemma about the kind of democracy
we should have and there are varied opinions. The political parties are
totally opposed to the amendments whereas a large portion of the population
agree with most of them. You will concede that our democracy should be
fashioned according to our own needs and as long as it has the assent
of the majority of the people of Pakistan, it will be democratic. I think
the problem is to correctly determine what is the will of the people.
Elections should normally provide the answer but there you run into other
difficulties. How free and fair are they? The present controversy between
what the government states and what the politicians’ claims can
only be settled through a free and fair election. I hope we will have
one. Here, no matter who wins, the other side will cry foul. Where do
we go from there? The government has permitted foreign observers during
the elections. Their report will be important. The people’s response
after is also an important indicator. If they do not accept the results
and suspect serious irregularities, they will rise, like they did in 1977
against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
Should the army have a role through the NSC set up. Ideally no, but we
are not ideally placed. Here again opinions vary. The statement “You
have to let them in to keep them out” must have raised plenty of
eyebrows in the west, especially in the academic circles. Strange enough,
while researching my paper on nuclear strategy, I came across this, “
it was necessary to build new nuclear weapons in order to ultimately reduce
them”. The author, Ronald E Powaski in his book “Return to
Armageddon” had attributed this comment to US policy makers during
the presidency of the great communicator, Ronald Reagan. How is that?
Over Kashmir, I think we understand each other’s point of view although
we may not be in total agreement. Kashmir is a genuine problem and any
imposed solution based on brute strength, which does not appease the will
of Kashmiri people, will at best be a temporary one and the festering
wound will open up once again. How should one look at the elections in
the Valley? For one, it cannot be a substitute for plebiscite. About them
being free and fair, how does one come to that conclusion, especially
when India refuses permission to independent foreign observers to observe
the process? Have they something to hide? Yes, I am aware of the sensitivity
of the much used term sovereignty but both India and Pakistan did permit
third party mediation during the Rann of Kutch conflict in 1965 and it
was resolved amicably. Apparently both sides were confident of their stance.
Why not now? You tell me. You also mentioned that Pakistan is opposed
to Indian hegemony in the region. Yes we are, and should not all hegemony
be opposed as a matter of principle. We do not deny India’s larger
status and their rightful place in the comity of nations. We just do not
want to be bullied by them.
Warmest Regards
Jamal
From: “Riaz Jafri” <jafri@rifiela.com>
To: “Ikram Sehgal” <defjrnl@pathfinder.com.pk>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 7:02 PM
Subject: Seat to Seat Adjustment
dear Mr Ikram Sehgal
Seat to Seat Adjustment
How disgracefully and shamelessely have our political
stalwarts thrown over board all their principles, political philosophies,
party manifestos and ideals, some even their personal animosities in dividing
Pakistan into bits and pieces. You take Khanewal and give Bhakkar to me!
You are no more Kafir and we are brothers in loot! And then the government,
the CEC, the press, the media are advising all to elect the right and
honest candidate. And then again the most surprisiingly only these honest
men will have the right to ammend the constitution-with their dirty and
Napak hands. Think O intellectuals, think. Ponder and weep on your so
called intellect.
Pakistan Zindabad.
Col Riaz Jafri (Retd)
30, Westridge-1,
Rawalpindi 46000
Tel: (051) 5463344
From: “David L. Yarkony” <yarkony1@bezeqint.net>
To: “Ikram Chand SEHGAL:>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:24 AM
Dear Sir,
With your kind permission, I would like to make some comments to THE GREAT
CROSSING (October 1973 War) written by Col (R) Eas Bokhari.
To begin with, let me extent my kudos to Col. BOKHRI for his excellent
writing, giving and taking credits from both the Israelis and Egyptians.
I am not trying to white wash no side in that war, only to make some remarks,
hoping to make the subject a little bit more under stable. The Egyptians
made a (very) big progress since the 1967 war, not only in equipment,
but in doctrine and training as well. At the same time, it should be mentioned,
that they did not exploit their (initial) success in crossing the Suez
Canal.
They paid for their initial success of taking out the Sager ATM’s
from the rear echelons (leaving them naked to the Israeli armored trust
after Arik Sharon’s division made the crossing).
And now to the success of the Egyptian Sappers -
a. Not mentioned but a vital issues was the building of sand ramps on
the west (Egyptian) side of the Canal, enabling to position ATM and tanks
and by that - overlooking the Israeli strong points and patrol roads along
the Suez Canal;
b. The excellent work in clearing approach paths for vehicular movements
on the East (Israeli) side of the Suez Canal by using water jets a really
innovative undertaking.
And some additional remarks -
a. A military planning is always built on (at least) two mandatory and
essential inputs -
[1] Facts (intelligence), and
[2] Assumptions.
b. The Bar Lev line was based on the assumption that all the mutually
supporting strong points
are occupied, strong armour reserves held in readiness (about 20 km behind
the Bar Lev line) and enough artillery available to support the defence
activities (the strong points) and at the same time supporting the counter-attacking
(armour) forces;
c. At the Day of Atonement (the opening day of the Yom Kippur War), nearly
half of the strong points were not manned at all and the rest held by
a skeleton crew (50-60%). The opposition to the crossing was not effective
and only the quick call-up of reserve forces (some of which reached the
Sinai front in less than 36 hours from the call-up), making an operational
movement of hundreds of kilometers) turned the tide, ending in a stalemate
101 km from Cairo (on the Egyptian side) and one of the Egyptian armies
completely surrounded (on the Israeli side). Only the American inter-
vention prevented them from being utterly defeated.
d. The role of the Pakistani pilots, I hope to God that they were mercenaries
and not pilots on active duty. We do not have a territorial or a historical
dispute with Pakistan, and let keep it that way. By the way most of the
Israeli aircraft loses occurred by the AAM’s and not in dogfights!!!
e. Regarding the mentioned Israeli collaboration with India economically
and militarily, may I remind you that for more than four decades India
was strongly against Israel and was acting according to Bandung Declaration
(Nehru, Suharto, Nasser and Tito). How about establishing a Pakistani-Israeli
Friendship to turn the tide and by that - looking for Pakistan’s
interest?
Dear Col Bokhari
My remarks were made in good faith not criticizing, wishing only to round
it out your article. I wish your readers (myself included) to be able
to read many more articles penned you..
Closing with sincere regards
David L. Yarkony
yarkonyl@bezeqint.net
From: “David L. Yarkony” <yarkony1@bezeqint.net>
To: “Ikram Chand SEHGAL:>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:01 AM
Subject: Some remarks to Columnist Muhammad Irshad article “Possible
Attack on Iraq?”
Dear Editor,
As a regular web reader of your interesting magazine, hope that I am not
going to hurt Mr. Irshad feelings by saying that his anachronistic believes
are not exactly adequate to describe Israel.
But if believes in what he wrote (mentioning Jewish lobby, Israel, and
the “menace of Israel” etc. quite a number of times), than
he believes that the earth is flat and the moon is made from green cheese.
I can only wish that the so-called “Jewish lobby” (or Israel)
would be as powerful as Mr. Irshad thinks and mentions. For his knowledge
we the Israelis are not ten feet tall; we too bleed when cut, and we like
to pay back to those who hurt us. We will not take kindly if we are attacked
by Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Using this occasion let me mention some misunderstandings and misconception
in his article: -
a. The Osirak plant was destroyed by the Israeli Air Force and not through
a combination of air attack and sabotage. Person or persons unknown did
to some extent sabotaged the Osirak equipment while still in France. Other
people and not only the Israelis were interested to stop, or at least
to delay Saddam’s plan. Have you thought that the Iranians (and
maybe some others) had a vested interest and not only the Israelis?
b. Mr. Sharon is the Prime Minister of Israel and not the President as
stated;
c. Israel may or may not posses’ nuclear weapons, but historically
has shown much more responsibility that Mr. Saddam who used poison gas
on his own people (Halabja March 1988) and on the hapless Iranians (Operation
Kerbala to retake Fao peninsula).
Reference Dilip Hiro “The Longest War” (1990) and John Bulloch
“Saddam’s War” (1991) -
The Iraqi use of Special Weapons -
To avoid defeat, Iraq sought out every possible weapon. This included
developing a self-sustaining capability to produce militarily significant
quantities of chemical warfare agents. In the defense, integrating chemical
weapons offered a solution to the masses of lightly armed Iranian troops.
When conducting offensive operations, Iraq routinely supported the attacks
with deep fires and integrated chemical fires on forward defenses, command
posts, artillery positions, and logistical facilities.
During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq developed the ability to produce, store,
and use chemical weapons. These chemical weapons included H-series blister
and G-series nerve agents. Iraq built these agents into various offensive
munitions including rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs, and warheads
on the Al Hussein Scud missile variant. Iraqi fighter-attack aircraft
dropped mustard-filled and tabun-filled 250-kilogram bombs and mustard-filled
500-kilogram bombs on Iranian targets. Other reports indicated that Iraq
may have installed spray tanks on an unknown number of helicopters and
dropped 55-gallon drums filled with unknown agents (probably mustard)
from low altitudes.
Sincerely
David L. Yarkony, Israel
From: <Aamir Salaria@aol.com>
To: <defjrnl@pathfinder9.com>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 5:33 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor
At last the BJP led government of present India has decided to pull back
its military machine and affiliate troops, the third biggest in the world
after China and USA from its western borders.
Last year in December, after a so-called attack on its parliament in which
neutral international reporters were barred for investigations, it had
decided to deploy its military might on the borders inline with its policy
of coercion and hegemony from day one, to intimidate and harass all its
neighbours in general and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in particular.
Keeping a cool head and heart, the present government of President Pervez
Musharraf showed great maturity and wisdom by ignoring the threatening
statements issued by New Delhi, in particular, by the present Hawkish
Deputy Prime Minister of India to dismember its biggest neighbour, bring
it to its knees and teach it a historic lesson etc. However, they had
no other option but to move its army to the eastern borders to safeguard
and protect its sovereignty, national integrity and to cope with any untoward
eventuality.
Like all unilateral, illogical and irrational decisions, the present ruling
Junta in India had to withdraw its forces eventually. However, every peace
loving, civilized and educated person must ask this question now that
what has Prime Minister Vajpayee and his government gained from this useless
adventure apart from huge financial losses, further increase in poverty
and hunger in India?
It is no secret that millions of people could have been provided food,
clothes and shelter, basic medical facilities and other amenities of life
that more than 70% of its population is deprived of, from the money which
has been wasted on this futile exercise.
Is it a democracy and is that the way a Real democratic country and its
leaders should operate in the Global village of today? I leave it to the
enlightened readers of the Defence Journal to decide.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Sincerely,
Engr. Aamir A. Salaria,
14, Vanessa Drive,
St. Louis, MO. 63131,
U.S.A.
PH: 001 - 314 - 660 - 2623
FAX: 001 - 314 - 317 - 8797
From: “Rahman, Jyoti” <JRAHMAN@treasury.gov.au>
To: <defjrnl@pathfinder9.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:14 AM
Subject: factual error in Maj Pervaiz’s interview
Dear Sir,
Referring to the cover story Remembering our Warriors: Maj (Retd) Raja
Nadir Pervaiz, SJ <raja_nadir.htm in your October 2002 issue, without
drawing any aspersions to major Pervaiz’s veracity or credibility,
I believe the following statement is factually wrong.
“Frankly speaking after a while we were on our own - we surrounded
the stronghold, captured quite a few insurgents and the remainder slipped
out in the cover of darkness, we were the first to open Barisal from the
stranglehold of the insurgents. Gen. Irshad Hussain and Zia Ur Rehman
(Both became presidents) escaped that night from Barisal.”
I presume Maj Pervaiz is referring to Maj Gen Zia-ur Rahman Bir Uttam
and Lt Gen H M Ershad in the above sentence. Neither of them could have
been present in or around Barisal during the War of 1971.
After the Operation Searchlight begun, the then Major Zia of 8 East Bengal
led the rebellion in Chittagong and broadcasted a call for independence.
He then withdrew his troops across the border to India, met with other
rebel officers (then Majors Shafiullah, Khaled Musharraf and others) in
Sylhet in April, and raised 1st Brigade of Bangladesh Army in July. The
Brigade was based in the Indian State of Meghalaya and did not enter the
then East Pakistan until November. As Zia built a political career out
of his war hero image in the post liberation Bangladesh, his whereabouts
during the War is a matter of public record, and he did not fight in any
battle in Barisal.
Lt Gen Ershad was a Lt Col in 1971 and was posted in West Pakistan. He
was repatriated to Bangladesh in 1973 and did not participate in the War.
Question of him escaping from Barisal does not arise.
Regards.
Jyoti Rahman
International Economy Division
Commonwealth Treasury Australia
6263 2710
